Anglicans Fearing Permanent Split Over Gay Marriage as Bishops Threaten to Walk Out

[Padres1969]

Yet I know personally of people who continue to be practicing Christians BECAUSE of Bishop Spong. He is one theologian writing his own theology. Many people don’t like it, but they don’t have to like it. One nice thing about the Anglican Church is that we can have two Bishops - Jack Spong and Tom Wright - both writing very different books, and that is just fine. There is room for them both.

What’s that term GKC is so fond of, we’re a “motley” group?

Though to be honest I do find much of what Spong says to be a tad much. I mean some of what he says isn’t traditional, but given modern knowledge is logical. And some of it is clearly Christian. But his rejection of Theism and the Divinity of Christ is pretty clearly not Christian and is in direct opposition to the Nicene and Apostles Creeds that all Episcopalians and Anglicans profess. It strays way too far into JW territory. And other Christian denominations don’t accept JW baptisms for that very reason as they’re non-trinitarian. Spong’s assertions regarding the nature of Christ are similarly non-trinitarian, and frankly non-Anglican.

 

[Brendan]

INo one. NO ONE can judge who Jesus loves and cares for as a part of His Church on earth.

That one is easy, and yes we CAN judge that one, so easily that it is a ‘no brainer’

Christ loves and cares for everyone, no acceptations, from the humblest nun to every ISIS member.

The corollary is likewise a judicial action. Does the person love and care for Christ?

We can determine that from their own statements.

Some do, some do not.

 

[GKC]

What’s that term GKC is so fond of, we’re a “motley” group?

Though to be honest I do find much of what Spong says to be a tad much. I mean some of what he says isn’t traditional, but given modern knowledge is logical. And some of it is clearly Christian. But his rejection of Theism and the Divinity of Christ is pretty clearly not Christian and is in direct opposition to the Nicene and Apostles Creeds that all Episcopalians and Anglicans profess. It strays way too far into JW territory. And other Christian denominations don’t accept JW baptisms for that very reason as they’re non-trinitarian. Spong’s assertions regarding the nature of Christ are similarly non-trinitarian, and frankly non-Anglican.

Though I use the term, incessantly, it is not because I am fond of it, or the situations (both historical and contemporary) that make it indispensable in discussing Anglicans.

 

[Peter_J]

That one is easy, and yes we CAN judge that one, so easily that it is a ‘no brainer’

Christ loves and cares for everyone, no acceptations, from the humblest nun to every ISIS member.

The corollary is likewise a judicial action. **Does the person love and care for Christ?

We can determine that from their own statements.**

Can’t help think of youtu.be/vcN22TSoQB4?t=12m10s (under a minute).

 

[theropod]

Can’t help think of youtu.be/vcN22TSoQB4?t=12m10s (under a minute).

I love that show.

 

[Thorolfr]

“We as a church” that would have to be. England, as a country, does recognise such unions as marriages.

That’s what I thought. I couldn’t figure out what Peter J was talking about when he said, “…but we as a country will not recognize your union as a marriage”. As a country, they’ve already recognized same-sex marriage.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

That one is easy, and yes we CAN judge that one, so easily that it is a ‘no brainer’

Christ loves and cares for everyone, no acceptations, from the humblest nun to every ISIS member.

The corollary is likewise a judicial action. Does the person love and care for Christ?

We can determine that from their own statements .

I disagree with you. People say and do all sorts of things. There is no way to judge. There are some people out there right now I scratch my head over. Really? You love Christ? And then you go and treat someone HOW?

There was/is a radio station here in Northern California whose owner had been host of a call in show for decades. And about 4-5 years ago he predicted that the end of the world, well the rapture, was coming on May 21st. He had people selling all their possessions and getting all worked up because God told him the end was near. He also counseled people in way that was horrible. All in Christ’s name.

I have no doubt that he was a very devout and prayerful man who loved Jesus. But when he died a few years ago, I said a prayer for him and asked Jesus, quite honestly, to have a long talk with him about the havoc he caused. It was not in the name of Christ at all.

All I’m trying to say is that we cannot ever know what goes on between a person and God. Fruits of one’s life may give us a hint, but not always. And words? Even credal words… not always.

 

[Padres1969]

Though I use the term, incessantly, it is not because I am fond of it, or the situations (both historical and contemporary) that make it indispensable in discussing Anglicans.

Oh I know you probably use it because you see it as a bad thing. I always rib you because I see it as a good thing (to an extent).

 

[GKC]

Oh I know you probably use it because you see it as a bad thing. I always rib you because I see it as a good thing (to an extent).

I know. Not everyone does know, though. Some think I use the term in approbation. I use it as a warning.

 

[Nelka]

If they split what will they call themselves?

 

[theropod]

If they split what will they call themselves?

Good question. It will contain a large majority of the world’s Anglicans, so it will certainly bear the name.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s what I thought. I couldn’t figure out what Peter J was talking about when he said, “…but we as a country will not recognize your union as a marriage”. As a country, they’ve already recognized same-sex marriage.

Yes, I know. Perhaps you missed this:

Let’s all hope that they do better at presenting their position than we US-conservatives did. In particular, making it clear that what they’re saying to SS-couples who want to marry is (hopefully this won’t be oversimplifying): “We’re not going to stop you from doing what you like, but we as a country will not recognize your union as a marriage.”

I actually don’t think what I said is so hard to understand (granted, I’m a little biased ) if read thoughtfully.

Putting it another way: those of us who opposed SSM were *not *calling for laws telling people they can’t have a ceremony, a procession, rings, flowers, wedding-gowns and tuxedos, guests, a cake or a reception. We were opposing governmental identification of SS unions as marriages.

 

[mjwise]

Another Episcopalian chiming in. I refuse to be associated with the approval of SSM and bishops who are allowed to bless abortion providers.

It was not a bishop, but a dean of a cathedral. As an Episcopalian, you know full well that self-sufficient congregations choose and hire their own clergy (subject only to initial approval of the bishop), including the cathedral congregation. That dean is there because the congregation wants her there.

If you are looking for centrally controlled and enforced doctrine on social issues, I would agree that the Episcopal Church is not for you. However, I have never once heard Episcopal clergy defend abortion myself, and certainly not in a liturgical context. I think there is a wide range of belief as far as that’s concerned. Even the modern RC teaching on the issue post-dates the Reformation.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

It was not a bishop, but a dean of a cathedral. As an Episcopalian, you know full well that self-sufficient congregations choose and hire their own clergy (subject only to initial approval of the bishop), including the cathedral congregation. That dean is there because the congregation wants her there.

If you are looking for centrally controlled and enforced doctrine on social issues, I would agree that the Episcopal Church is not for you. However, I have never once heard Episcopal clergy defend abortion myself, and certainly not in a liturgical context. I think there is a wide range of belief as far as that’s concerned. Even the modern RC teaching on the issue post-dates the Reformation.

Yes, you are quite accurate. I have not heard, either, anyone preach or include in a liturgy the defense of abortion. I have been at liturgies of loss, where people have honored the choice made in an abortion, but that is an entirely different matter.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes, you are quite accurate. I have not heard, either, anyone preach or include in a liturgy the defense of abortion. I have been at liturgies of loss, where people have honored the choice made in an abortion, but that is an entirely different matter.

They have honoured the choice to have an abortion? Or they have honoured the choice to not have an abortion? One of those is Christian, the other is against Christianity.

I don’t think you’ll find many even in the Episcopal Church that believe Bishop Spong’s reflections are a legitimate view to have, particularly for a credal Christian church. No one in my diocese I’ve heard espouses anything of the sort in the vein of what he does.

Evidently some do however, like Complinesanfran. If such views are tolerated, to a point where he has never been excommunicated and I would suppose that it would be an allowable view within the Episcopal church, then it is better to separate from such a body.

 

[theropod]

I’ve been holding back, and I’ll probably regret this.

I’m kind of in disbelief at the Episcopalians here who are painting some kind of Kumbaya all accepting picture of the TEC. That was once the case, and it’s how TEC got into the situation it’s in, but now that the revisionists have taken over, there is no room for dissent from their agenda. Priests who refuse to perform gay weddings are being forced to resign. It’s been made clear that those who are faithful to the Bible and Tradition will not be tolerated. That is why the denomination is in such decline. That is why 75% of the Anglican Communion is going to move on and leave whoever’s still talking to TEC and ACoC in whatever tiny declining organization they have left.

 

[commenter]

Which church out of curiousity is trying to add to the Gospels?

“A New New Testament” was written in 2013, by a council that voted on which gospels and other books should be added. For instance the Gospel of Thomas and Mary, along with several other “new” books, were published as scripture in “A New New Testament” not in an appendix but alongside, mixed in among books like Luke, Romans, etc. The president of the United Church of Christ, Geoffrey Black, was among the adders of new NT books. The recommendation by “A New New Testament” was for congregations to gradually filter the new books into worship services and Sunday School as *scriptures *- scriptures equal to the familiar 27. In other words, these are not proposed as study guides for historical background to scripture, but **as **scripture.

I have only heard of a few congregations actually using these “scriptures” as scriptures, so far. Since Geoffrey Black is no longer president of the UCC, perhaps it is unfair to characterize this as the current denominational position. If I am wrong, I regret my reference to that denomination as unfair.

 

[mjwise]

I’ve been holding back, and I’ll probably regret this.

I’m kind of in disbelief at the Episcopalians here who are painting some kind of Kumbaya all accepting picture of the TEC. That was once the case, and it’s how TEC got into the situation it’s in, but now that the revisionists have taken over, there is no room for dissent from their agenda. Priests who refuse to perform gay weddings are being forced to resign.

I can only say my experience has not been this. Your definition and mine of being “forced” to resign are probably different though. An unpopular priest in a self-supporting congregation are probably going to part ways soon.

It’s been made clear that those who are faithful to the Bible and Tradition will not be tolerated. That is why the denomination is in such decline. That is why 75% of the Anglican Communion is going to move on and leave whoever’s still talking to TEC and ACoC in whatever tiny declining organization they have left.

The idea that some arbitrary level of social purity is going to save any denomination is almost silly at this point. As has been discussed in another recently on this forum, RCs are losing adherents even faster than the mainlines and if there’s a stalwart of at least the appearance of doctrinal purity on any subject, it’s the Roman Catholics! Locally, there was a breakaway group from the local episcopal church in 1980 due to the 1979 prayer book and female ordination (ah, the fear of priestesses, the devil-spawn that had to be fled from before the gays took the boogeyman spot). Now there’s some doctrinal purity for you. But you know what? That congregation finally threw in the towel a few months ago. All the “purity” they had could not save them.

 

[GKC]

I can only say my experience has not been this. Your definition and mine of being “forced” to resign are probably different though. An unpopular priest in a self-supporting congregation are probably going to part ways soon.

The idea that some arbitrary level of social purity is going to save any denomination is almost silly at this point. As has been discussed in another recently on this forum, RCs are losing adherents even faster than the mainlines and if there’s a stalwart of at least the appearance of doctrinal purity on any subject, it’s the Roman Catholics! Locally, there was a breakaway group from the local episcopal church in 1980 due to the 1979 prayer book and female ordination (ah, the fear of priestesses, the devil-spawn that had to be fled from before the gays took the boogeyman spot). Now there’s some doctrinal purity for you. But you know what? That congregation finally threw in the towel a few months ago. All the “purity” they had could not save them.

Sounds a lot like my parish. Save that we are still around; celebrated our annual feast of name for the 36th time recently, IIRC . But anyone reading this sort of exposition will understand why some Episcopalians had to shake off the dust from their feet, starting back 35 years ago, more or less.

 

[mjwise]

Sounds a lot like my parish. Save that we are still around; celebrated our annual feast of name for the 36th time recently, IIRC . But anyone reading this sort of exposition will understand why some Episcopalians had to shake off the dust from their feet, starting back 35 years ago, more or less.

35 years? The breakaway groups go back to when the US was barely a country. In the 19th century, groups left in a huff because there were too many candles on what was suspiciously starting to look too much like an altar (and not a communion table) and priests were wearing too many vestments and making too many hand motions (encroaching Romishness!). The Methodists were themselves a breakaway group in the 1790’s. What is prescribed by The Book of Common Prayer was apparently just not enough for some people.